#asoue analysis

[ven10]

Something about the Baudelaires+the tragedies they face being associated with fire (the fire that destroyed their home, the fire at the Caligari Carnival, the fire at the hotel Denouement…) vs the Quagmires+their tragedies being associated with water (Duncan+Isadora being kidnapped+stashed inside a statue of a fish then later inside of a fountain, the Baudelaires finding Quigley in the Hinterlands surrounded by ice, Quigley+Violet having a key moment on a frozen waterfall, Quigley+the Baudelaires escaping via said waterfall, Quigley being seperated from the Baudelaires by the Stricken Stream, Quigley sending a telegram to Violet whilst she is in a submarine fully submerged in water, the Baudelaires almost reuniting with Quigley after travelling in the depths of the sea in ‘The Grim Grotto’, in ‘The Penultimate Peril’ when it’s revealed that Duncan+Isadora are in danger of drowning as eagles attack their self-sustaining hot air mobile home which is flying over the sea and,of course, all three Quagmire triplets becoming lost (in the sea) to the great unknown.

This is especially evident in ‘The Vile Village’ when the Baudelaires have just rescued the Quagmires who at that point were “two dripping figures” bc of the “rushing water” of the fountain they were trapped in which is then contrasted, merely one paragraph later, by the man who causes the majority of the Baudelaires troubles brandishing fire, “Detective Dupin, holding a torch and heading straight toward the Baudelaire orphans.” [evidence taken from pages 210+211 of ‘The Vile Village’.]

This could represent a number of things:

1: The Quagmires trying to help the Baudelaires like how water extinguishes fire.

2: The cold way in which Olaf uses the Quagmires solely for their fortune and his own sadistic purpose as opposed to his hunting down of the Baudelaires being fuelled by burning revenge.

It’s also interesting how Duncan+Isadora are associated with water whereas Quigley is initially associated with ice in TSS until he+the Baudelaires begin to rely on each other and then he is associated with water (the ice of the stricken stream cracking and Quigley being carried away with it). Due to this, there is solid reasoning to view water in asoue as a metaphor for friendship (at least in the case of the Quagmires).

[when-we-drive-away-in-secret]

alright, so this is a question about netflix series which i've recently watched and now i'm suffering from asoue brainrot. there is an obscure moment in the penultimate peril (s3ep6) where frank locks olaf in the closet before the trial, and just as frank is about to close the door, olaf says, "one last thing", as if intending to say something. what do you think he wanted to add? is it something that is maybe more clear in the books?

OKAY so after rewatching that scene (several times) and rereading the corresponding scene in the book, I now feel at least partially equipped to answer this question! (But please bear with me because my research did send me on a bit of a tangent)

So first off, I don't think dealing with the book scene will be of too much help here (although not entirely unhelpful, either), because, as much as I love the netflix adaptation—and I do wholeheartedly adore it—it changes so much that the comparable scene is functionally unrecognisable in several key aspects. The main one being the lack of hostility towards to Baudelaires—Olaf is solidly isolated and supposedly running out of options at this point in the show, whereas his mentality in the books is entirely different because things appear to be going much more his way. He has a crowd at his back and the Baudelaires are seen as far more guilty, which doesn't really translate into the show!verse at all.

So, if we're looking at the show from a more isolated standpoint, I had to consider the possibility that it was a deliberate "what if" moment, without having anything else planned to say, purely for the purpose of getting in the Baudelaires' heads. However, I do feel like the most likely answer is that Olaf did in fact believe he would be heard out, so that's what we'll be assuming from here on out.

The fact that the Denouement in question calls him "buddy" and yet treats him roughly could have made him believe that this is Ernest playing the long con—pretending to be an ally to the others because they were outnumbered at the time, or simply for his own ends. However, he could also genuinely believe that it's Frank, and that he'd be heard out because it's the "noble" thing to do—VFD and the general society in the snicketverse is routinely governed by politeness over logic, and so cutting him off is simply impolite, so he may have believed he'd be able to talk his way out of being locked up. The use of "buddy" could be a generic, positive moniker used by Frank, or a genuine sentiment expressed by Ernest; the rough shake of his arm could be simply how Ernest behaves on any given day, or genuine righteous anger from Frank—just as it's impossible for us as the audience to be sure, Olaf has to try and figure this out in mere moments.

Regardless of what he thought would happen or who he thought he was talking to, though, I have to believe that whatever he was going to say would have been targeted more at the Baudelaires than the Denouement currently getting in his way, so it would likely have been an extension of what he'd already said, and what he'd go on to say at key moments for the remainder of the series—another attack on the Baudelaire parents, a critique of VFD's intentions, or something equally ambiguous to sow the seeds of mistrust in the minds of the children. Despite his general demeanour, he is actually a terrifyingly capable villain, and the human embodiment of the "either I'm god, or truth is relative" soundbite. If he's allowed to talk for long enough, he can convince just about anyone of anything (which is exactly what happens when he takes the stand during the trial), and I wouldn't be surprised if he was expecting to be allowed to run his mouth until both the adults are on his side.

What I think is a very interesting point to consider, though, is one useful comparison from the books—the number of the room he's sent to. As we all know, the rooms in the Hotel Denouement are arranged according to the Dewey Decimal System, and people are categorised above just as the records are categorised below. In the book, the Baudelaires are confined to room 121, and Olaf is locked in room 165 to await their trial. In the Dewey Decimal System, 121 refers to Epistemology—the theory of knowledge. A quote taken from the wikipedia page for epistemology reads:

Epistemology asks questions such as: "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", and "What do people know?"

Having the Baudelaires placed here shows that they aren't sure what people know about them, or what will be revealed at the trial, or what will happen to them (as clearly illustrated by the their conversation at the end of chapter ten). Olaf, however, is placed in room 165: Fallacies and Sources of Error. This could imply that he's in the wrong, but perhaps more likely foreshadows that other people are wrong about him. He will not go to prison, he will not be convicted, and, perhaps most crucially, he is not as completely evil as the Baudelaires believe. He has done terrible things, and he is a terrible person, but—as discussed during The End—they are wrong about the most crucial of his evil deeds (to them). Because he didn't kill their parents. He represents everything that VFD pretends it isn't, but at this point the Baudelaires believe (and have been told) that he is the complete antithesis of what the Volunteers represent—and so, he is categorised as a source of error.

However, in the show, both parties are placed in entirely different rooms, and therefore entirely different categorisations. The Baudelaires are placed in room 342: Constitutional and Administitive Law. This is a choice I absolutely adore, because at this point in the narrative they are quite literally trapped in bureaucracy. They fail because the system is rigged, and they are literally imprisoned by the law—not in the sense that they have already been convicted, but in the sense that they will be no matter what they do. If they stay, the High Court will pronounce them guilty. But, when they run, they're supposedly only proving their own guilt—damned if they don't, and damned if they do.

Olaf's is perhaps the more interesting change, though, because he's no longer seen as a source of error—despite the claims he makes about the Baudelaire parents and VFD immediately before being locked up (once again implying that he isn't lying to them, just using convenient truths). And it carries through to the trial, because he uses the truth (albeit a very deliberately and pointedly edited version) to make the Baudelaires seem just as guilty as he is. In the show, he's placed in room 170: Ethics (moral philosophy). And he is given the chance to talk at the trial, and talk he does. He twists the truth, spins it so that the Baudelaires seem guilty, but that is the exact point of moral debate! He trolley-problemed his way into screwing with the Baudelaires' heads, not because he needed to (he knew he was never getting convicted, because he knew who was on the High Court), but to prove a goddamn point. Yes, he's done terrible things, but did anyone think to ask him why? Of course, to us, the reader, the viewer, the third party observer, it doesn't matter. Because at a certain point, actions speak for themselves. Reasons can explain, but not necessarily excuse—that is the reasonable stance to take, and no matter his reasons, the explanation will never be an excuse for him.

But he's an actor. That's why Klaus calls him up to the stand in the trial, because he knows he'll want to talk in front of an audience, and can't imagine any way he wouldn't incriminate himself. And despite the Baudelaires' personal opinions of his ability, we've seen time and time again that he must be a good actor, because people always believe his performances. And as any good actor could tell you, it's crucial to be able to read your audience. If you want the best reaction, then you need to work out, as quickly as humanly possible, how they'll respond, and play up or tone down your performance accordingly. And he's spent so much time with VFD, with the Baudelaires, that he knows just what to say. He knows that, regardless of their reasons, they will feel guilty—in both the book and the show, they question if they're not just as bad as him! They did what they did to survive, and they genuinely worry that they're the same as the murderous, fortune-hungry beast that's been hunting them through their grief and fear. And he knows that. He wants to get in their heads, maybe just for fun, but mostly to get them to come to him. And the worst part is that it bloody works! They end up escaping with him, burning the hotel and potentially letting him out into the world, turning away from the good-hearted people trying to help them because if they can't trust anyone to be on their side, at least they can trust him not to be.

All this to say that, looking at his character, the writing of the show and the way the events unfold, while I can't give you a verbatim quote of what I think he would have said, I will say this: I wholeheartedly believe it would have been a short, targeted line to the Baudelaires, attacking them, their belief system, their very moral character. Because he didn't know he'd be allowed to speak at the trial—remember, it was only Klaus' fear and paranoia that put him on the stand in the first place—and as far as he knew, that could have been his last chance to ensure they'd come to him. He wasn't sure his previous words had been enough, and we all know he has a flair for the dramatic. Think back to one of the most chilling moments of the entire series, both in the book and show, at the end of the Bad Beginning. When the lights go out and he makes his escape, the Baudelaires would have still lived in fear of him, knowing he was on the loose, but that wasn't enough. He risked capture, risked losing his window of escape, all to torment Violet one last time; to plant that final seed of paranoia and fear into her mind, to whisper threats in the dark. And I have no doubt that, had he been given the chance, that is precisely what he would have done here.

By cutting him off, the Denouement gave the Baudelaires hope; hope that it might be different, hope that people wouldn't listen to him this time. But after all they'd been through, they couldn't risk not letting him talk—everyone always listens to him, in the end, and they had to make sure that everyone would finally believe them instead. And that very act of cutting him off, of not letting him give that final threat, is perhaps what sealed their fates. If Olaf's threat was fresh in their minds, they might have been too fearful to address him. If, like in the books, he'd eluded to his acquaintance with the High Court, they might have known what would happen. But he didn't get the chance, and neither did they.

[lionmythflower]

i truly believe that lemony never held an ounce of judgement towards Bertrand for marrying Beatrice ever. Like yes, lemony did love Beatrice, and it is shown that he still loves her even after her marriage and then after her death. But in all of his poems about her, there is not a single thing talking about Bertrand in vain. Nor at any point does lemony show that he's mad or jealous at Beatrice's husband. I don't think that he is a jealous person. Yes, he still loves Beatrice, and there is a good chance she still loved him. But she moved on. They parted and she moved on. But Lemony is not mad about it in the slightest. He might not have moved on, but he isn't petty about it at all and he doesn't hold a grudge. He writes poetry as a healthy coping mechanism to deal with the heartbreak and her death but he's still the bigger person and isn't about to be a bad person about it. In other words, he has the reaction that any women respecting man should have.

[sixty-silver-wishes]

The Repugnant Retrospective: Reading A Series of Unfortunate Events, over ten years later

(Note: For the sake of clarity, "Daniel Handler" will here be used to refer to the author of the books, while "Lemony Snicket" will be used to refer to the narrator character.)

I must have been in fourth or fifth grade the first time I picked up The Bad Beginning, the first book in A Series of Unfortunate Events, which contains thirteen books in all. In those days, I was a big fan of Guardians of Ga'Hoole and Percy Jackson, and read voraciously- to the delight of some of my teachers, and to the chagrin of others, who would prefer I not be reading a book for my own amusement during a lesson on mathematics. All thirteen books were in the school library, which I still look back on with fondness. It was a cozy little place- as libraries often are- that left me with plenty of memories, from going with my friends to the annual Scholastic book fair, to the unshakeable guilt of having to purchase a book on prehistoric animals because I'd checked it out and lost it, only to find it at home after the fact. I think I began reading A Series of Unfortunate Events after I finished the Ga'Hoole series, and although it was nothing like anything I had read before, I was hooked.

The phrase on paper here refers to an explanation of the basic concept of something, as opposed to experiencing it in practice. To witness an idea on paper does not necessarily mean it must be written on paper, as it could be written on the internet, or tapped out in Morse code, or spray-painted on the back of an unsuspecting associate while he waits in an abandoned bounce house for a secret message via carrier pigeon. However, it is true that reading an idea on paper may produce a very different effect than reading it in practice, whether or not paper is involved at all.

On paper, A Series of Unfortunate Events is about three children experiencing miserable things, over and over again, and ultimately culminates in an ending that is left ambiguous- a word which here means that the fates of the main characters are left unclear. When I first read them, I was used to stories involving magic, and enormous battles, and falling in love, mostly clear lines between good and evil, and an ending where there are no more secrets, because everything gets resolved. None of these things are bad to have in a story, of course, but a story does not need to have all- or any- of them to be good. Such is the case with A Series of Unfortunate Events. On paper, the series may not have appealed to me, due to the things I was used to reading at that age. But in practice, I couldn't put them down. I can remember feeling a sense of pride at figuring out the mysteries and understanding the literary references I could glean at my tender age. I can remember laughing uproariously at some parts (especially the Volunteers Fighting Disease song and the antics of Carmelita Spats), as well as feeling a dreadful pit grow in my stomach at others- which, of course, is a feeling that is typically better avoided than not. A pit in your stomach, after all, may mean you have uncovered a devastating secret, or had your heart broken, or have a nasty parasite gnawing at the lining of your digestive organs, and will need to see a doctor to extract it and seal the pit back up. Or, as was my case, it may mean an honest exploration of a truth about the world that you, at your young age, had some idea about, but had been sheltered from, and were finally seeing it laid out in a way that was simple and profound and shattering and enlightening all at once.

All that being said, I couldn't stop reading them, despite the warnings not to read them on the back of every book. The only one I didn't finish was The End, because I had to return it to the library before I could reach the end of The End, although this was not the end of my experiences with A Series of Unfortunate Events, and just a few days ago, I had reached the beginning of The End once again, and finally read The End from beginning to end. As the years went by, I completely forgot some parts of A Series of Unfortunate Events, and others refused to leave my mind. But while I would not experience another word of an Unfortunate Events book for over ten years, A Series of Unfortunate Events was constantly following me in some way or another, like three mysterious initials, or an unblinking pair of eyes in the night, or a particularly pesky neighbor I have had to move across the sea three times to get away from, but still keeps sending me telegrams in code. I was not done with the series, nor was it done with me.

When I was in middle school, through a completely different set of events altogether that would take another long post to chronicle, I decided I wanted to be a writer. I took to keeping notebooks where I wrote down my own stories, and even managed to finish a few. By the time I reached college, I was equipped with a love of history and classic literature, and majored in Creative Writing. I continued to read, and took a course on Arthurian literature- taught by a brilliant scholar whose work, I would find out a few years later, is cited on the Unfortunate Events Wikipedia page. (I also took a miserable course on English grammar that would have made even Aunt Josephine weep, and is better not elaborated on.) But also while in college, I began intensively researching a certain historical figure whose name you may already know. Like the fictional Snicket, I was researching someone whose life was full of mysteries, many of which have still gone unsolved. This person, like all people, made a number of morally ambiguous decisions, although whether or not some of these decisions were made for good reason is up for debate. One could even say that his life could also be summarized as "a series of unfortunate events," despite how prodigious, erudite, and altruistic he was- words which here mean the Soviet composer and pianist Dmitri Dmitriyevich Shostakovich- whose work, I would later learn, Daniel Handler listened to while writing A Series of Unfortunate Events. I became acquainted with, among other authors, the works of Nikolai Gogol, Franz Kafka, Kurt Vonnegut, and J.D. Salinger- whose writing styles echo in both Handler's work and my own. And of course, while I did not pick up on the reference in the books and forgot about it entirely, last year, I had been introduced to a little German flick called The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, which of course, had absolutely no impact on me whatsoever. (If you know anything about me, you will immediately be aware that this is a blatant lie, and that nothing I say should ever be trusted.) I began working at a store that sells Puttanesca sauce and a great variety of horseradish condiments. And all the while, I, like everyone else in the world, was experiencing my own series of unfortunate events, both personal and political.

All that is to say, if I enjoyed A Series of Unfortunate Events as a young child, you can imagine what I thought of it as an adult- older, wiser, and more well-versed in things like classic literature and world politics. Most nights, I listened to the books on audio while drawing- because just as Violet needs to tie her hair up in a ribbon and Klaus needs to polish his glasses to focus on their areas of expertise, I must have something long and often thought-provoking to listen to. As I said, there was a lot I didn't remember about the books- and it wasn't just plot details and characters.

For instance, while I can’t say I remembered it the first time, when I read the first book, it really left an impression on me when Count Olaf slapped Klaus across the face, and how much the book dwelt on it. From a narrative perspective, that slap was a threshold being crossed- a sign that the Baudelaires were no longer in a safe and predictable environment, and were living with someone actively hostile towards them. But from an emotional perspective, it really struck a chord to see Klaus continue to think about it throughout the first book, processing his first encounter with abuse. There was a bittersweetness to watching the orphans grow up and learn self-reliance, and the cynicism and misfortune of the books was well-balanced with witty humor, satirical commentary, and a constant sense of hope- something, of course, that I also appreciate about Shostakovich's works.

A Series of Unfortunate Events has a great deal to say about evil, and the nature of oppression. As a kid, I don't think I realized just how awful Count Olaf was. Of course, I knew he was a terrible villain trying to make these kids miserable in any way he could, but as an adult, I could see that Count Olaf was more than that. He harassed Violet in a borderline sexual manner, just to make her and her siblings feel weak. He delighted in burning books and murdering brilliant people, so there would be less knowledge and nobility in the world. And perhaps most impactfully, we see his rise and fall over the course of the series, as for all his treachery and the pain he brings the orphans, he ultimately finds himself powerless due to his own actions, as well as the inevitable dissolution of his own troupe.

Seeing Olaf's theatre troupe gradually leave him one by one, along with the various schisms that shape the series, brought a distinctly political understanding to A Series of Unfortunate Events that I did not have as a child. It brought to mind real-life tools of oppression and ignorance, and how they are doomed to fail because of their tendencies to devour themselves in their desire to harm and ostracize others. There's an interesting situation with the carnival "freaks," who demonstrate how the oppressed can become oppressors themselves through a desire for power over their situations- and how quickly oppression turns on itself, as Olaf's troupe finds themselves being called "freaks" as they seek to exploit the carnival freaks for their own gain. The audience just wants violence, and it doesn't matter who it's against, as long as they have someone to ridicule. We also see how inaction is just as harmful as active oppression- Mr. Poe is just as responsible for putting the Baudelaires in bad situations as Olaf, and even well-meaning adults like Aunt Josephine, Hector, and Jerome Squalor endanger the orphans because they're too scared or too content in their ignorance to protect them. The colony of islanders put themselves and the entire world at risk because they refuse the apples that would have easily cured them of the fungus they were infected with, too content to follow their leader instead of "rocking the boat." With all the ignorance and malice surrounding them, the orphans instead must learn self-reliance, even with the few allies they do have.

A Series of Unfortunate Events is especially mature when it handles the topic of morality. Characters are often shown to be morally gray, even those who are initially introduced as "good" or "evil." I found Fiona to be an especially fascinating character, as she exemplifies this moral struggle, although I feel the way she's described in the narration unfairly contradicts her character. On one hand, it acknowledges that she makes similar decisions to the Baudelaires as a foil to them- both have had to make morally dubious decisions on account of their siblings- but the narration will repeatedly refer to her as "treacherous" or blame her for "breaking Klaus' heart," although we find out she regretted her actions and, if anything, betrayed Count Olaf more than she did the Baudelaires. But regarding gray areas, Count Olaf, by the end, performs an act of nobility out of love, and the Baudelaires are constantly shown coming to terms with their own moral struggles as they fight to survive and find justice- although as the series progresses, "justice" becomes more and more of an absurd concept as corruption is found everywhere- although justice still persists, and as long as there is evil in the world, there will always be people "noble enough" to fight it. It was especially gratifying to see Justice Strauss and Jerome Squalor come back in book 12 to apologize for their inaction, and to help the Baudelaires against Count Olaf, in a moment that, however brief, challenged the previously-established cynicism of the series and demonstrated that people don't have to stay complacent, and that it's never too late to take action against ignorance.

Handler masterfully presents the plethora of philosophical and harrowing concepts that the series deals with to his young audience through his storytelling, which- like Salinger- sometimes distances itself tangentially to allow the audience to process the heavier moments, relating the Baudelaires' experiences to things the readers may have experienced or read in order to help them understand them. It's an incredibly adult way of delivering a children's story, particularly one that's more mature than most. As I first read the books as a child, and then read them as an adult, I can appreciate this maturity more, although being older than the characters allows me to look at the books from a different perspective. Violet and Klaus, from the beginning to the end of the series, are respectively 14-16 and 12-14, and while as a kid, I admired them and thought they were so brilliant and mature, as an adult, there's a sort of horror in realizing just how young they are. Sunny goes from being an infant to a toddler, but her extreme intelligence and emotional maturity for her age still makes her character more fantastical and less grounded than her siblings at times.

I found the series to hold up remarkably well for the most part, except for in a few areas. The most glaring issue, although I won't dwell too much on it, is the transphobia regarding the "henchperson of indeterminate gender." While, to my understanding, this is remedied in the Netflix series (which I have not seen), it was still uncomfortable to see this character frequently dehumanized by both the story and the other characters, even if they played a relatively minor role. At times, it felt contradictory to the story's themes, as the narrative would explicitly discourage discrimination against people who are "different" (book six even defines the word "xenophobia"), but also portrays an androgynous character as inhuman. It's entirely possible that Handler was not aware of trans issues at the time he wrote the books, but this element nonetheless prevents them from aging as well as they could have.

The other issue I had with the series is that sometimes, plot elements almost seem forced within the narrative. While the orphans, of course, face plenty of misfortune, the solutions to many of their problems are often practically handed to them by the narrative. For example, when Klaus and Sunny need to figure out an anagram, they just so happen to be hiding in a closet full of alphabet soup, which they conveniently use to solve it. The wasabi that Sunny finds in the Gorgonian Grotto just so happens to be the cure to the medusoid mycelium, and it works instantly. Klaus, in an especially infuriating moment, cracks a code with an elaborately-worded phrase summarizing the central theme of Anna Karenina, and the specific words that he uses just so happen to be correct, despite the fact that there are countless ways the same idea could potentially be phrased. While the orphans all have their own specific interests- Klaus likes to read, Violet likes to invent, and Sunny likes to bite things, and later cook- they can seem underdeveloped at times because they're so heavily characterized by these interests, which they very frequently rely on. There's a moment in book four where Violet has to research hypnosis in order to save Klaus, and I really liked the idea of them having to take on each other's interests to help each other. However, for the most part, the Baudelaires tend to stick to their specific strengths, which usually allow them to solve any problem, so they don't often need to branch out.

Overall, despite its few faults, I enjoyed A Series of Unfortunate Events, probably even more now than I did when I was a kid. Each book was beautifully written, and I loved the slow reveal of plot elements, as well as the gradual descent into its philosophical themes. Being more well-read and experienced at my age than I was at nine or ten, I was able to appreciate the books far more. The humor, storytelling, and themes still largely hold up, and it was fascinating to return to a piece of media that left such a strong impression on me at a young age, and would continue to leave an impression on me the older I got. I would definitely encourage anyone to read them, especially if, like me, you also read them as a child. Perhaps you may not want to read such a long tale of misery and woe being inflicted time and again on three (mostly) innocent children, and as Ishmael would say, I won't force you to. These books, while written for a young audience, can be very emotionally heavy, and may not be for everyone. But there's a lot of truth to them, and like the most miserable late quartets of Dmitri Shostakovich, I found them a great comfort because of just how real they are thematically. Perhaps later on in life, I'll encounter even more experiences that will make me appreciate the series even more than I do now, just as I did growing up long after I first read them. Maybe then, I'll have to read them again, and as I'll watch the Baudelaires grow for the third time, reflect on how much I've grown as well. But for the time being, I'll conclude this retrospective, which has already dragged on for long enough, as I've finally reached the end- at least for now.

[doylldonmagar]

there's an idea i had about the 2 types of readers that I've been thinking a lot about. maybe this is already a thing, plz lmk

there are readers that want the entire story just handed to them. all of the character development, the plot, everything. they don't want to have to think about any of it, they want it all in the book. no cliffhangers, no vague backstory. these readers don't read books for the feeling of the words, they probably don't read poetry, there ought to be a point to what they read. and once this kind of reader finishes a book, they kinda move on. they may think about the plot or foreshadowing or whatever, but it's all review of the book, nothing is added to the book at this point, they just review what they know. one of my sisters is this kind of reader.

then there is the other kind. this kind reads a book and then thinks about potential scenes that a character could have, or the way he might have reacted to hearing that news, or how these characters might act when reunited. this kind of reader is the fanfic writer, the one that adds to a story after they finished the canon story. this kind is the kind that can enjoy books with very bland characters because these readers can place themselves in the characters place and give the character their own personal traits, or the reader can simply fill in the character traits or background, etc; they don't need the character to be fully formed because they will personalize the character. these readers can be entertained by anything because they are actually creating their own entertainment, they just need something to jumpstart the process.

I guess this applies to movies and shows as well as books, but I haven't really thought through the implications

[thermodynamic-comedian]

a thing i noticed while rewatching asoue.

ok so. there's this consistent theme of count olaf not being able to work with other villains, right? and that was always implied to be because he's bad at teamwork (a traditional bad guy trait), and just kind of left at that.

BUT. HERE'S THE THING:

olaf being bad at teamwork makes perfect sense for his character. he's extremely self-centered, and never really had that "other people exist in the same way as me" realization that most people go through during their childhood. in other words, he completely lacks any sense of sonder, which is why he won't hesitate to leave someone the second they deviate from his plan.

but ohh no, that's not all.

see, another thing i noticed is that the reoccuring reason for other villains ditching olaf/olaf ditching other villains is a lack of understanding.

esmé and olaf never worked well together, because their motives were so different; esmé just wanted her sugar bowl back, meanwhile what olaf was seeking was much more complex: both a material good (the baudelaire fortune), but also a symbolic, indirect revenge on beatrice baudelaire for her involvement in his father's death. the reason the two couldn't work together was because they couldn't understand each other's perspectives.

it's even more interesting of a pattern when it comes to olaf and carmelita: in my head, it seems like olaf genuinely was reminded of a younger version of himself at first, but got irritated when she was too much like a younger version of himself (no experiance of the real word, spoiled rotten), from before his father died. in other words, a version of himself that was still in that place of privilege that he'd lost with his father. so olaf wasn't just annoyed with carmelita's entitlement, her presence and personality reminded him of what he'd lost and how that loss had changed him.

overall, i think a lot of olaf's actions have this theme of not having a lot, or having lost a lot. his house, his outfits, all of it indicates that at this point in his life, he's at his lowest. his dad's status implies he grew up in a place of privilege, but his life quickly went downhill afterwards.

i think that that's, to some degree, the reason he hates displays of wealth or wellness so much. even on a moral basis: he openly criticizes members of vfd for their perceived moral pureness or goody two shoes attitudes, because he sees it as dishonest. he's seen the bad side of vfd, and no longer has any sympathy for the "good" side. but beyond that, i think he envies their morality, since it's something he never had despite being raised the same way.

i also think that maybe olaf feels like he was never given a fair chance to do the right thing, since he was approached by the man with the beard but no hair and the woman with the hair but no beard right after his father's death, when he was emotionally vulnerable and easy to manipulate. he thinks that this means that he had no real choice, and is therefore not responsible for his actions.

but vfd members that have been through similar tragedies (the snicket siblings, larry, monty, josephine, etc) and still continue to do the right thing constantly remind olaf that the problem is his own nature (irresponsible, emotional, irrational, morally bankrupt) making him easy to manipulate, not just the circumstances of his life. their very existance proves that he had just as much of a fair chance as anyone else; that's why he hates them so much. he doesn't want to be responsible for his actions.

uhhh this got very off-track, and turned into me just analyzing count olaf's character, but oh well-

[hitsuzenhusbands]

hey! i hope you're having a good day! i just read your (amazing!) asoue fic "ashes to ashes," and i was fascinated by the way you portrayed kit and olaf. i thought i'd send this ask because i'd really love to hear more of your thoughts on their dynamic if you feel like sharing? but if you don't feel like expanding on it, i totally understand! thank you so much for sharing your beautiful work on ao3!

OHH anon you are so kind...i apologize for being so extremely late but i just finished writing a little analysis so i figured now's about the right time to write a semi-legible response. might have been scary and incomprehensible otherwise. but i am finally here to scream and cry and thank you so desperately because im SO happy you enjoyed them AND decided to ask for more info! <3

to begin, i'd be absolutely inconsolable if i didn't point you towards @virginian-wolfsnake's fic the eye of the storm, probably one of my fave k&o fics of all time that delves into the meat of their relationship through the years from the perspective of kit. they're young and still excited by missions and flirty and tender and genuine, and, in time, when the rest of their world collapses, so do they--messy and tense and so wonderfully realistic you have to read it and then read it again. honestly, if you don't want to read the rest of this but still want an answer, just read that. but also read it anyway

and now i have to ask you to forgive me...i have not read the books in a very long time and while i know the netflix series (in comparison) is bad and awful and terrible, i have watched it a million times. so if i'm wrong on anything. that's why.

to begin, the version of olaf i depicted in my fic is at the height of his...how do you say...pathetic misery. not including the spiral he has during the series. to me, the death of his parents are the beginning of his downfall into something-like-insanity, but he's still (and will continue to be) recognizably himself, if that makes sense. he's always been messy and emotional and dramatic (see the line: "...Kit has seen him in worse states and with a much better view..."), but only now does he reveal not a different side of himself per se, but a different angle of one that already existed.

im a fervent believer that olaf's always been a little self destructive and a lot crazy. hes spent the greater half of his life coming to terms with the fact that he is intrinsically not as noble as the rest of vfd--hes impulsive and obnoxious and self-obsessed, barely even literate at times--and it takes a special kind of guy to carve the insignia of the organization full of people he despises into his own front door. still, his parents' death was a catalyst, meaning he wasn't entirely opposed to vfd beforehand. he probably liked the missions and the secrecy and the dramatics, obviously the disguises and everything, but i think before the night at the opera it was really just a source of fun for him. he never truly grasped the reality of it, the nature of his actions and the weight of his involvement. whether that was out of naivety or pure neglect of the facts is up for debate. (there's a little bit of this in the shattering of thalia and melpomene if that interests you at all, beloved anon. see the line: "...[Esme] could never compare to the extent to which [Olaf] removes himself from everyone else entirely. How he spends so much time worrying about himself he almost forgets to worry about himself...Esme could never truly get lost in her own greatness. Could never turn a blind eye to the inner workings of V.F.D.")

kit, on the other hand, definitely did. serving as a volunteer was her purpose, the sole thing she had to cling to. she dedicated her life to it, making conscious decisions to go against her moral code in the hope that it all truly was for a greater good. i think, at times, she could fall into her own little fits of self-destruction, putting vfd above herself entirely (see the line: "This wouldn’t be the first time she’d done something she would never truly volunteer for...he’d still spent year after year watching her run off...to do something she could never speak of." "...she still returned with clenched teeth and knit eyebrows, as though she had no choice in the matter at all.")

to avoid any more convolution, in my mind it goes something like this: both are volunteers--olaf born and raised (along with beatrice), kit torn from her family and thrust into the thick of it so early on its all she knows. they grow up, probably-definitely know each other but dont know each other until, say, late teens-early twenties?

up until then, they've been everything previously described, but intermingling with one another changes this. olaf's easygoing approach rubs off on kit, partly because she finds more joy in his company than in missions, partly because he makes every attempt to keep her from leaving. i like to think she tries to keep his relatively flimsy moral code in check, or at the very least restrain his temper to the best of her abilities.

to me, they're a simultaneously great and terrible couple. at their best, they counteract each other in a positive way as described above and serve as a welcome distraction from the realities of a crumbling vfd, a little island of tenderness and domesticity in the ocean of turmoil that surrounds them.

and at their worst, their personalities combat so violently it's hard to see how they ever could have been together. olaf deals out the worst of it, prone to neglect and self-isolation, a deeply inset refusal to discuss anything with her, an inclination towards firestarting and an increasingly poor reputation with everyone kit knows. then again, kit isn't free of blame (if you can call it that), she's just as opposed to talking anything out as he is, and her isolation takes on the shape of running off to do as many missions as as she can before she's dead on her feet. she's pulled in different directions--a well-instilled hatred towards firestarers, only further influenced by whatever rumours olaf's growing list of enemies supplies her, versus her love for him, her knowledge of who he really is, a concept that is often tested. (see the line: "He’s reminded of a fight they once had, about something or other, that ended in her angry admission that it was easier to be upset with him when he wasn’t nearby.") 

anyway, the idea is they grow further and further apart both ideologically and physically/relationship-wise until the opera night and the crash following that (see: the whole fic!) and from then on i think they fall into something like an evil situationship. they barely see each other, complete opposite sides of the schism. i say situationship because i think when they do see each other (on missions, at events/in public, in private, etc.) it is just a terrible experience no matter what. they're both torn between hating the other for what they know about them/what they did (i like to think olaf finds out about kit supplying the darts) and reminiscing/yearning for what they once had.

for the sake of this i wont give my thoughts on whose baby kit has because that's a whole other thing (not really. its just more of a fun hc i think about on occasion as opposed to something concrete in canon or even my version of canon) but their scene in the end does make me insane. its a culmination of all the time spent wishing what happened didnt happen, almost as though theyre seeing each other for the first time once again, perhaps not blind to the past but looking away for (on olafs part) one final moment of normalcy.

i hope thats what you were looking for to any degree, anon. im a little rusty on my lore but they matter to me soo much. if i have to leave this on anything, its go read eye of the storm. kitlaf fic of all time.

[jeppyposting]

I FEEL THE ASOUE BRAINROT BEGINNING IN A VERY SERIOUS WAY. im in my notes app analyzing these characters i hate it here. and I CANT STOP WATCHING DANIEL HANDLER INTERVIEWS, i adore him!!! i love listening to him speak so much i wish i could have a conversation with this man grrrrrr

[free-my-boy-grumbot]

made a series of unfortunate events quiz to feed the brain worms. enjoy :]

ALSO i wanna know if these quizzes are actually accurate at all so tell me if im right in thr tags

[asouefanworkevent]

another fall is upon us! another woevember is coming!!

what is it?

woevember is an asoue fanwork event week, that will take place from november 12th through november 18th, 2023. last year there was a different group of characters each day, and this year, each day of the week is dedicated to a different location for a series of unfortunate events or all the wrong questions.

what do i do?

the prompts will be revealed now, so everyone has time to make something. between now and the week of november 12th, you’ll create fanworks about the prompts, and then post it on the corresponding day during november 12th - 18th!

don’t forget to tag this tumblr (asouefanworkevent) in the post so i can find it and reblog it, and tag the post with #woevember !

what do you mean by fanwork?

everything! fanfic and fanart are of course allowed, but woevember has always been meant to be an event that is as big or as little effort as you want! fanwork also means edits, gifs, analysis posts, headcanons!! your cosplay!! your photography!! your photosets!! your web weaving!! your super short fics!! your sketchiest drawings!! your most ramble-y half-fic idea posts!! your wip scenes!! you merely saying 'lemony snicket, though. am i right?????' (and you are. you're so right.) whatever you are moved to make from the prompts! i want people to be encouraged to and be able to create even something small that didn’t exist before for the snicketverse, and share it with other people!

are there any rules?

to keep the event open and comfortable for everyone, no explicit content. also, as always, sibling romance and age gaps will not be tolerated.

do i have to make something for every day?

only if you want to! feel free to just make something for one day if you want :) the point of having a different theme for each day is so some part of canon that you like comes up eventually, and you can at least make something for one of the days. or you get struck by an idea you might not have considered before! i want to get people thinking about all the intriguing people and places in asoue and atwq and the exciting different ways we can interpret and create from the same idea.

what are the prompts?

the description under each prompt is just some ideas to get your brain going -- feel free to take them in another direction too!

november 12th - olaf's mansion

to celebrate the 24th anniversary of the bad beginning! what becomes of the house post-canon? was it olaf's family home? what sort of nefarious, or, perhaps, completely innocent shenanigans have occurred here, pre-canon? does this house also have a secret passage somewhere?

november 13th - the baudelaire mansion

did beatrice and bertrand build the mansion? what sweet pre-canon moments have we missed with the baudelaire children and their parents? what visitors came there? do people still think the mansion remains are haunted post-canon? what sort of new home do the baudelaires make for themselves when they return to the city?

november 14th - the clusterous forest

the wild and lawless place. what was it before the water was removed? what sort of beach or shore was there? where did the water go? does it ever come back? what does lemony, or anyone else, find in there? does another train ever come through after the thistle of the valley? do the stain'd-by-the-sea crew ever go in to investigate it? what sort of rumors might be created about a place like the clusterous forest?

november 15th - the hotel denouement

the last safe place! is it vfd-owned, or denouement-owned? what happens down in the archives? are the archives ever found? what sort of firefighter or firestarter meetings have taken place here? what relationship might they have with the preludio hotel? what were the denouements up to at the hotel? what hotel, or what sort of home in general, might frank and ernest create for themselves post-canon, with dewey's absence?

november 16th - the masked ball

the duchess of winnipeg's masked balls have so much potential! what happened at that last one, where lemony tried to contact beatrice? when was that? what happened at past balls? what is the duchess's relationship with the parties? (whether the duchess is jacquelyn or r or jacquelyn is r's daughter is up to you, dear reader!) what costumes do they all pick! or is there even a different masked ball you might have in mind?

november 17th - the reptile room

to also celebrate the 24th anniversary of the reptile room! what becomes of this house post-canon? how did monty come to own the reptile room, where does his herpetology career fit into vfd? why was the quagmire mansion connected to it? how did jacques get there and find quigley? what other moments with the baudelaire children in the reptile room might we have missed -- or pre-canon moments with the baudelaire parents? do not forget about our beloved, the incredibly deadly viper!

november 18th - free space!

there's tons of other locations, too! prufrock prep, heimlich hospital, 667 dark avenue, paltryville, caligari carnival, the city, the punctilio, veblen hall, the orion observatory, the opera, the sewers, the hemlock tearoom and stationery shop, the museum of items, the museum of bad breakfast, the snicket mansion, the quagmire mansion, the island, the mortmain mountains, lucky smells lumbermill, wade academy, killdeer fields, anwhistle aquatics, the queequeg? or do you care not for locations! use the free space to write about the character or relationship or thought of your choosing!

if you have any questions about anything, feel free to drop me an ask or a message!

happy creating, and i hope to see lots of you november 12th-18th!! ✨

[haze-of-hyperfixations]

✨😭 for fic rec game?

✨ - A fic you wish you could read again for the first time

a thesis on second chances by melimarron ( @mellkellyismyhero on tumblr)

Parallels fic. It's such a good post-canon character study. It goes into my favorite dynamic in the show!! It introduces a layer of irony to the character analysis that metaphorically stabs me in the heart (but also works so well)!! It's just so well written, and I love rereading it, but man do i wish i could read it for the first time again. It basically knocked the wind out of me with excitement the first time I saw it, and the delight from reading it stayed with me for days. (Also the fandom doesn't have very many fics, so getting to experience this one for the first time again would be fantastic.)

😭 - A fic that ripped your heart out (but it hurt so good)

Illumination by cygninae ( @cygninae on tumblr)

ASOUE fic. The only word i can think of to describe this fic is "breathtaking." The descriptiveness is so incredible, the emotion is so raw, and the fic literally made my lungs ache. Dismantled my heart, pieced it back together, and I love it so much. It's stunning. Love the sibling dynamics, and all the complex thoughts and feelings, and the whole fic just hits me so hard every time I read it. Definitely recommend for anyone who's read ASOUE, especially for anyone who loves the Quagmire triplets.

thanks for the ask!! :)

[ven10]

hello! it's your friendly anon again :D! i truly love how details you are with your headcanons! the isadora headcanon is my favorite!

this been on my mind after browsing your blog a bit, so i hope you don't mind me asking once again. as your main focus is the unfortunate generation, especially the quagmire triplets, do you have any thoughts or headcanons for the other kids? in particular, fiona? fiona is one my favorite characters next to the quags. i would love to read anything you have for her.

Hi again anon! :) Great hearing from you again! :D I’m really happy you liked the last hcs I did!!!! :)))

I have lots of hcs for the unfortunate gen so I’ll just stick to answering for Fiona in this so my answer doesn’t turn out to be the length of a novel! :) [feel free to ask for the other characters again tho+I will happily answer in detail!]

Thoughts about Fiona:

Not hesitating is definitely a key aspect of her character (I mean that one’s obvious tho) but I like how consistent this is with all aspects of her. She doesn’t hesitate to take charge but she also doesn’t hesitate to correct those who are in charge, like correcting Captain Widdershins by adding “or she” to his motto.

{ Negative side of this? Not hesitating for long enough to kiss Klaus. As in, not even waiting for his consent. Although it is stated on page 232 of ‘The Grim Grotto’ that Fiona “hesitated for a small moment” the fact that Klaus’ reaction to the kiss of to lift “one trembling hand to his face, as if Fiona had given him a slap instead of a kiss” clearly conveys how the kiss was unwanted. Although I personally believe it was more so due to circumstances than attraction that the kiss was unwanted as Fiona does this after betraying the Baudelaires. }

Wracking up life experiences like kissing is maybe something Fiona is trying to do as she may feel she’s missing out by spending her time isolated from her peers on a submarine. Maybe she didn’t even want to kiss Klaus specifically, maybe she just wanted to kiss someone. Resulting in her failing to consider (or failing to act on the possibility) that the romantic desire was not mutual or that it shouldn’t have been acted on under those circumstances, i.e, kissing your crush right after revealing you have teamed up with the guy who has been stalking him+his siblings trying to murder+kidnap them.

Loyal: I know she may seem like one of the least loyal characters in the series given (SPOILERS FOR ‘THE GRIM GROTTO’) how in TGG she betrays the Baudelaires, choosing to join the ‘bad’ side of VFD over helping them however thinking about all that time she spent isolated, likely thinking+imagining scenarios where her brother-Fernald/the hook-handed man- had stayed with her…the fact that Fiona still chooses her brother over her friends despite him abandoning her and becoming a villain clearly conveys how deeply loyal she is to her family.

“mother is dead” “father moved away” “stepfather has abandoned me”

“my brother may not be as wonderful as you Baudelaires, but he’s the only family I have. Aye! I’m staying with him! Aye!” [‘The Grim Grotto’ Chapter 13, page 224]

The fact that in this outburst Fiona is (subconsciously?) mimicking the speech patterns “Aye!” of the stepfather who abandoned her is another level of sad. She has to follow her family because she knows that if she doesn’t then she will be left behind.

***

I noticed a slight parallel between Fiona’s character and Olaf in the Netflix version. (Not exact wording)

Violet: His name’s Phil.

Fiona: Well, I call him Cooky.

Vs

Fiona: His name’s Fernald.

Olaf: Well, I call him Hooky.

In Fiona’s case I doubt the nickname was meant as insulting given how Phil says he doesn’t care what he’s called whereas in Olaf’s case Fernald tried multiple times to tell Olaf his name but was shut down every time. This shows how although Fiona’s actions may be similar to some of the villainous characters (E.g by joining the ‘bad’ side of the schism) her good intentions are what sets her apart.

***

The way she folded her family photo in Netflix!TGG was having creases between each person in the photo (photo of younger Fiona with her stepfather and Fernald). This could be so that she only sees the image she wants to see when looking at it, E.g, folding Fernald away so she sees only her stepfather+her and doesn’t have to remember the pain of Fernald being gone.

Defiant: A detail I remember from the book version of TGG is ‘or she’ being scratched next to the quote ‘He who hesitates is lost.’ I like how she’s willing to noticeably+permanently challenge flawed things. Especially given how she may have risked punishment for this ‘vandalism’.

Capable+Independent: in Netflix!TGG Fiona was able to successfully control an entire submarine on her own!! She even repaired damaged solo! This is impressive (if a little sad that so much responsibility+pressure has been placed on her…)

I love how said independence clashes with Violet’s character. These two have had to take charge of things for their own safety (+the safety of siblings for Violet) that it’s difficult for them to follow decisions made by the other.

In terms of VFD…she’s in deep😟… Fiona didn’t even know what was in the sugar bowl but still chose to pursue that inanimate object over taking three children to ‘safety’. Also, in her telegram to Kit Snicket in ‘The Grim Grotto’ she mentioned the safety of the sugar bowl BEFORE the danger that three live human beings aka the Baudelaires were in. Yikes. (Ig that’s what growing up surrounded entirely by VFD members can do…)

Sorry to low-key insult her like this but Fiona had no need to reveal Fernald was her brother to Olaf. The revelation would be more likely to get her used as blackmail to get Fernald to do Olaf’s bidding than anything else tbh. (Scene took place in TGG when Olaf was threatening to kill Fernald and had his hands to his throat, pushed up against a wall). Maybe the threat of the situation caused Fiona to act without thinking. Especially given the ‘no hesitating’ mindset that’s been drilled into her.

Major respect to Fiona for somehow putting up with this mess of a man for YEARS :’) [Cap Widdershins]

This is probably reading WAY too into it but you said you like my detailed analysis so,like a submarine, I’ll dive in DEEP. Fiona’s glasses are shaped like isosceles triangles: 2 sides equal, 1 different. Fiona+Fernald on one side of VFD captain Widdershins on another. 🔼

2 angles the same, 1 different. Fiona being willing to see things from Fernald’s angle. Cap Widdershins being unbudging.

Or, Captain Widdershins + Fernald knowing secrets that are “too terrible for young people to know” whilst Fiona is left in the dark. Someone is always left out in their family trio.

Hc that post-canon Fiona living on land would choose clothes like jumpsuits that resemble what she wore on the Queequeg for familiarity. Refuses to go to the opticians to update her prescription for the longest time bc she doesn’t want to change her triangle glasses. Klaus avidly encourages her to avoid the opticians. Eventually she goes bc she is informed that she can keep the frames+just change the lenses if she wants to. 👓

Fiona would find it really difficult to adjust to ‘normal’ life post-canon (if she ever gets that chance-) bc ordinary life would be so STRANGE to her after growing up underwater 🌊 surrounded entirely by VFD members. Poor girl probably thinks communicating via secret code through literary references is normal. Also she’s not had many peers to interact with so that’d be an issue. Not to mention things VFD (especially the ‘bad’ side) may have forced her to do that she’d have to come to terms with…

Uses ‘Shiitake mushrooms!’ as a swear 🍄.

Hope you like this analysis, anon! Sorry this took a while, Fiona is a complicated character+I wanted to do her justice. :)

Also, she would use this mug I found on Pinterest! ☕️

[caddyheron]

Introduction </3 [updated!! 11/09/24]

Likely the 2034893th introduction I've made, but this time, I'll pin it!

Name & Pronouns: My name is Willow or Kat/Cat [or ig Katherine, that’s okay too] but that might change honestly, but Willow won't. My pronouns are they/she or any, I don't mind that much.

Age: 18 (may '06)

Important Info: - Diagnosed autism and ADHD. - First year university student studying psychology with linguistics. - I tend to just post my hyperfixation at the time!!! I am very openly neurodivergent about things and can be very excitable.

Special Interests: - Theatre is my main special interest!!! I love musicals, plays, analysis, set design, acting etc etc. - Psychology!! I’m doing a degree in psychology and linguistics!!. Pleaseee talk to me about psychology especially if you’re studying it.

General Interests: - Linguistics - Acting - Singing - Writing - Literature analysis

Favourite Musicals All Time Ever: - Blood brothers!!! - Hadestown!!!

Currently Musical Hyperfixation: - MEAN GIRLS GOD TALK TO ME ABOUT MEAN GIRLS <3 Other Musicals I love: - Sweeney Todd - We are The Tigers - Matilda. - Come From Away - Charlie and The Chocolate Factory - SIX - In the heights & I like others!!!

I also like other things such as BTVS, TSLOCG, ASOUE, and probably other shows and music!!

I’m lowkey hyperfixating on the hunger games rn too soooooooo!!! If anyone wants to talk. Boundaries: - Preferably don't dm me without sending an ask!! I have a hard time talking to new people but I love connecting with others < unless it’s like urgent. I don’t mind if you feel the urgent need to dm me - No NSFW unless we’re close / pre approved, you know who you are lol.

[shipcestuous]

Edgar and Ellen (submission)

Hello, Shipcestuous. I read your posts on Klaus and Violet Baudelaire and I enjoyed them immensely. I read the books as a youth, and your analysis has definitely got me curious about watching the series.

I also looked through your relationship index, and I couldn’t find Edgar & Ellen on it, so I’d like to see if I can sell you on it. It’s a series of books about two twins (the eponymous Edgar and Ellen) who live in an decrepit, gothic mansion on the outskirts of an idyllic, picture-perfect town called Nod’s Limbs. The twins resent their overly sweet and peaceful surroundings, and their favorite pastime is to spread mischief and pull pranks on the unassuming townsfolk.

The twins’ parents abandoned them to travel to parts unknown, so while they aren’t technically orphans, they might as well be. Their legal guardian is the physically massive, perpetually grinning Heimertz, whose imposing appearance and selective mutism means the twins don’t interact with him much. Their other companion is Pet, a strange creature who looks like a hairball with a single eyeball.

Other than them, the twins don’t have anyone else they are on friendly terms with. Their dynamic is one that’s both sibling rivalry (when they aren’t pranking the townsfolk, they’re trying to outwit and prank each other. Their pranks can be quite extreme too; Ellen ties her brother down and dangles a sharp pendulum over him in the very first book!), and also an unshakable bond of partnership. Methodical, cautious Edgar is the brains behind their schemes while assertive, impulsive Ellen puts them into action. While they both can’t stand sentimentality or anything positive, there are several moments in the books where it’s clear that they care deeply about each other. Most notably, two of the books feature plot points where they are separated and must learn to cope without the other at their side.

The books share a similarly gothic tone with ASOUE, both being aimed at a younger audience (I’ll concede maybe E&E is skewed slightly younger, but I read both series when I was a teen and associate both with a similar age range). The overarching plot very quickly shifts from the twins’ wacky exploits to more serious subject matter. They’re almost always in danger of being evicted from their mansion so that it can be demolished. In their efforts to preserve it, they uncover mysteries and conspiracies behind the town’s history and it’s ruling family.

The books were also adapted into a 26 episode cartoon series. This series doesn’t share the overarching plot of the books, is structured episodically, and is overall much lighter in tone. But I think it’s still worth a watch, if only to see the twins in motion and/or gather some shippy screenshots. And I think you might find there’s quite a few of those.

I’d recommend watching the episode “Trickery Dickery Clock”. There are a lot of very shippy moments where the twins are made to dance together as part of a class, and later during the climax when they willingly put those dance lessons into practice in order to reverse the damage of a scheme gone awry.

--

I have never heard of Edgar and Ellen! All those books and an animated series, too, and I had never heard of it. Amazing.

This definitely sounds right up my alley. I love how they basically only have each other. I’ll have to see if I can find the series. I can see how the comparison to Violet and Klaus is very appropriate.

Look at you, reading my Wordpress posts, checking my relationship index. You’re my favorite now. 

Thank you so much for this detailed recommendation!

[nicejewishcharactershowdown]

The results are in from round one, thank you all for your enthusiasm, it's been a joy to see your responses and tags! I'll have the fights ready sometime tomorrow I think -- I'll give you heads up before they post. In the meantime, I posted a character analysis write up of the eliminated contestants, discussing what makes them such Nice Jewish Characters. (Doing this after they've been eliminated in order to avoid influencing running votes). See you tomorrow for round two!

Round Two fights will be as follows: - 9th Doctor VS Christina Yang - Tevye VS Superman - Kermit The Frog VS Rebecca Bunch - Lily Moscovitz VS Edna Mode - The Addams Family VS Francine Frensky - Ferris Bueller VS Magneto - Truman VS Cecil Palmer - Wall-E VS Data

[Image description: a bracket of 32 competitors for the Nice Jewish Character Showdown. The contenders who have been eliminated from the last round have been put through a black and white filter -- James Wilson from House MD, Susan Ivanova from Babylon 5, Avigdor from Yentl, Samwise Gamgee from Lord of the Rings, George Costanza from Seinfeld, Schmidt from New Girl, The Baudelaires from ASOUE, Tommy Pickles from Rugrats, The Strilondes from Homestuck, Frankenstein, The Baker from Into The Woods, Will Byers from Stranger Things, The Lorax, and Worf from Star Trek TNG.

The left side has the following matches for round two: the 9th Doctor from Doctor Who VS Christina Yang from Grey's Anatomy, Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof VS Clark Kent/Superman, Kermit the Frog VS Rebecca Bunch from Crazy Ex Girlfriend, and Lily Moscovitz from The Princess Diaries VS Edna Mode from The Incredibles.

The right side has The Addams Family VS Francine Frensky from Arthur, Ferris Bueller VS Magneto, Truman from the Truman Show VS Cecil Palmer from Welcome to Nightvale, and Wall-E vs Data from TNG. Text says Nice Jewish Character Showdown on top, and bottom text is Round Two, followed by the @ for the account, @nicejewishcharactershowdown]

[End ID]

[unfortunatetheorist]

What is the meaning behind the Volunteers Fighting Disease song? (BCT)

Tra-la-laaa, Fiddle-dee-deee, Hope you get well soo-

Oh, sorry. Just singing along to a... surprisingly jaunty theme song for hospital use.

We first hear this obscure melody in The Hostile Hospital: Part One, but the tune still haunts.

I've done an analysis of the structure of the song (under the cut, feel free to skip ahead), and found this interesting trinket:

We are Volunteers Fighting Disease

And we're cheerful all day long

If someone said that we were sad

That person would be wrong

= 30 syllables

We visit people who are sick

And try to make them smile

Even if their noses bleed

Or if they cough up bile

= 27 syllables

Tra la la, Fiddle dee dee Hope you get well soon

Ho ho ho, hee hee hee Have a heart-shaped balloon

= 24 syllables

We visit people who are ill

And try to make them laugh

Even when the doctor says

He must saw them in half

= 32 syllables

We sing and sing all night and day

And then we sing some more

We sing to boys with broken bones

And girls whose throats are sore

= 28 syllables

Tra la la, Fiddle dee dee Hope you get well soon

Ho ho ho, hee hee hee Have a heart-shaped balloon

= 24 syllables

We sing to men with measles

And to women with the flu

And if you breathe in deadly germs

We'll probably sing to you

= 28 syllables

Tra la la, Fiddle dee dee Hope you get well soon

Ho ho ho, hee hee hee Have a heart-shaped balloon

= 24 syllables

But what does this all mean? Well:

24+28+24+28+32+24+27+30 = 217 / 7 = 31

The red section is particularly important, when one remembers there are 7 days in a week and 31 days (mostly) in a month.

Also, there are only 7 months which have 31 days in them: January, March, May, July, August, October and December.

And from the Snicket Wiki:

In other words, this is Handler's way, even if it is accidental, of saying that

The Baudelaires' danger is like [the nature of] time - it cannot be stopped.

The Baudelaires are, in a very literal way, BORN with bad luck.

However, it could be a clue to the time frame; ASOUE doesn't take place in a leap year, or the red [calculation] text would not be true...

N.B. Not a Netflix theory, as Netflix have additional lyrics, not counted for here.

¬ Th3r3534rch1ngr4ph, Unfortunate Theorist/Snicketologist